logo
Trial reveals flaws in tech intended to enforce Australian social media ban for under-16s

Trial reveals flaws in tech intended to enforce Australian social media ban for under-16s

The Guardian20-06-2025
Technology to check a person's age and ban under 16s from using social media is not 'guaranteed to be effective' and face-scanning tools have given incorrect results, concede the operators of a Australian government trial of the scheme.
The tools being trialled – some involving artificial intelligence analysing voices and faces – would be improved through verification of identity documents or connection to digital wallets, those running the scheme have suggested.
The trial also found 'concerning evidence' some technology providers were seeking to gather too much personal information.
As 'preliminary findings' from the trial of systems meant to underpin the controversial children's social media ban were made public on Friday, the operators insisted age assurance can work and maintain personal privacy.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The preliminary findings did not detail the types of technology trialled or any data about its results or accuracy. Guardian Australia reported in May the ACCS said it had only trialled facial age estimation technology at that stage.
One of the experts involved with the trial admitted there were limitations, and that there will be incorrect results for both children and adults.
'The best-in-class reported accuracy of estimation, until this trial's figures are published, was within one year and one month of the real age on average – so you have to design your approach with that constraint in mind,' Iain Corby, the executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, told Guardian Australia.
Tony Allen, the project director, said most of the programs had an accuracy of 'plus or minus 18 months' regarding age – which he admitted was not 'foolproof' but would be helpful in lowering risk.
The Albanese federal government's plan to ban under 16s from social media, rushed through parliament last year, will come into effect in December.
The government trial of age assurance systems is critical to the scheme. The legislation does not explicitly say how platforms should enforce the law and the government is assessing more than 50 companies whose technologies could help verify that a user is over 16.
The ABC reported on Thursday teenage children in the trial were identified by some of the software as being aged in their 20s and 30s, and that face-scanning technology was only 85% accurate in picking a user's age within an 18-month range. But Allen said the trial's final report would give more detailed data about its findings and the accuracy of the technology tested.
The trial is being run by the Age Check Certification Scheme and testing partner KJR. It was due to present a report to government on the trial's progress in June but that has been delayed until the end of July. On Friday, the trial published a two-page summary of 'preliminary findings' and broad reflections before what it said would be a final report of 'hundreds of pages' to the new communications minister, Anika Wells.
The summary said a 'plethora of options' were available, with 'careful, critical thinking by providers' on privacy and security concerns. It concluded that 'age assurance can be done in Australia'.
The summary praised some approaches that it said handled personal data and privacy well. But it also found what it called 'concerning evidence' that some providers were seeking to collect too much data.
'Some providers were found to be building tools to enable regulators, law enforcement or coroners to retrace the actions taken by individuals to verify their age, which could lead to increased risk of privacy breaches due to unnecessary and disproportionate collection and retention of data,' it said.
Sign up to Afternoon Update
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
In documents shared to schools taking part in the study, program operators said it would trial technologies including 'AI-powered technology such as facial analysis, voice analysis, or analysis of hand movements to estimate a person's age', among other methods such as checking forms of ID.
Stakeholders have raised concerns about how children may circumvent the ban by fooling the facial recognition, or getting older siblings or parents to help them.
Friday's preliminary findings said various schemes could fit different situations and there was no 'single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases' nor any one solution 'guaranteed to be effective in all deployments'.
The report also said there were 'opportunities for technological improvement' in the systems trialled, including making it easier to use and lowering risk.
This could include 'blind' verification of government documents, via services such as digital wallets.
Corby said the trial must 'manage expectations' about effectiveness of age assurance, saying 'the goal should be to stop most underage users, most of the time'.
'You can turn up the effectiveness but that comes at a cost to the majority of adult users, who'd have to prove their age more regularly than they would tolerate,' he said.
Corby said the trial was working on risks of children circumventing the systems and that providers were 'already well-placed' to address basic issues such as the use of VPNs and fooling the facial analysis.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tech expert's holiday phone hack every parent should know before travelling
Tech expert's holiday phone hack every parent should know before travelling

Daily Mirror

time30 minutes ago

  • Daily Mirror

Tech expert's holiday phone hack every parent should know before travelling

Tech expert shares the simple phone hack that can keep children safe on holiday, parents should enable this setting on smartphones, as risk doubles for the type of content kids can reach when abroad When heading abroad with family, the worst thing you can think about is if your kids are unsafe. But that safety can be compromised right from their online devices. Before going away and packing and planning, this quick phone hack shared by expert will save that anxiety so you can look forward to a relaxed holiday. ‌ Tech expert Matthew Bertram shared that if you enable the Content & Privacy Restrictions on iPhones (or the Android equivalent) that is the best way to protect kids from dangerous things online, especially in unfamiliar surroundings. ‌ Matthew explained: "Most parents are worried about what their kids might access online, but when you're on holiday, that risk doubles. You've got new surroundings, public Wi-Fi and less direct supervision. This setting blocks explicit content, stops risky app downloads and gives parents control, without having to be tech experts." It comes as a woman claims: 'I work in a hotel - you should never turn your lights on when entering your room'. ‌ How to set this feature up before you travel? Matthew said if you use iPhones it is quick as you just have to go on "Settings, tap Screen Time, and if it's not already on, switch it on. Then go into 'Content & Privacy Restrictions,' toggle it on, and set your 'Content Restrictions' to block explicit content in Safari, music, and any other apps that could be risky." He continued and said for Android users you "open Settings, select Digital Wellbeing & Parental Controls, and set up parental controls there. You can restrict apps and content based on Google Play Store ratings. It's a straightforward way to put strong guardrails in place." The other great benefit of this is that if one "site or app is blocked, your child can't just open a different browser to get around it, as the restrictions apply across the entire device." Why is this so important on holiday? Matthew insists that this is even more important on holiday because kids have "more unsupervised screen time" at the "airport, by the pool" the hotel too. With this setting it means they can still use their devices, but without straying into dangerous territory." The three specific risks that Matthew shares that this setting helps prevent: Firstly, "exposure to inappropriate content. Kids get bored easily on long journeys, and a single wrong click can lead them somewhere you don't want them to be. This filter keeps explicit material out of reach." ‌ He continues to his second point that on holiday there are "risky app downloads. When they see other kids playing new games or using new social apps, the temptation is huge. With restrictions on, nothing gets downloaded without your OK." Finally, the "surprise in-app purchases. Extra holiday downtime can lead to more gaming and more opportunities for apps to push purchases. This setting stops those accidental spending sprees in their tracks." Additional holiday safety tips for parents Some more tips from Matthew that he shared is to make sure you connect your devices to a secure Wi-Fi network, and if public Wi-Fi is used then to run it through a VPN to protect your personal data. ‌ Setting daily screen time limits for the kids so they experience the holiday in real life rather than through the screen. Aimless browsing can be reduced if you download entertainment from home. Have a discussion with your children about online safety and how to protect themselves from dubious links and to always tell you as parents when something is not right. When wanting to post your holiday, think again to post it at that specific time. "It's best to share them after you've left that location so you're not unintentionally announcing exactly where you are to the world."

Australian minister says ‘strength not measured by how many people you can blow up' as row with Netanyahu escalates
Australian minister says ‘strength not measured by how many people you can blow up' as row with Netanyahu escalates

The Guardian

time30 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Australian minister says ‘strength not measured by how many people you can blow up' as row with Netanyahu escalates

The Albanese government has rejected Benjamin Netanyahu's incendiary criticism and accused some Israeli politicians of 'bigoted' views about Palestinians, as the extraordinary political fight between the two nations turns uglier. Home affairs minister Tony Burke – whose refusal of a travel visa for Knesset member Simcha Rothman stoked further criticism from Jerusalem – backed in his decision and further criticised Israeli prime minister Netanyahu over the war in Gaza, where tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed in Israel's military and bombing campaign. 'Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry,' Burke told Radio National on Wednesday. 'Strength is much better measured by exactly what prime minister Anthony Albanese has done, which is when there's a decision that we know Israel won't like, he goes straight to Benjamin Netanyahu.' Burke's comments came the morning after Netanyahu escalated the standoff with Australia and condemned Australia's government directly via social media. On X, Netanyahu's office wrote, 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews'. Netanyahu also wrote a letter to the Albanese on Monday, accusing the prime minister of pouring 'fuel on this antisemitic fire', and condemning Australia's recognition of Palestine – which he called 'appeasement'. The letter was shared on social media by the Australian Jewish Association, a right-leaning group who had organised Rothman's planned speaking tour. Netanyahu's letter claimed there was 'Jew-hatred now stalking [Australian] streets'. It was a major ratcheting up of tensions between the two countries, following a tit-for-tat sparked by Australia's pledge to recognise a Palestinian state. Burke's department this week cancelled a visa for far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman, over his past comments calling Gazan children the 'enemies' of Israel. Israel then revoked the visas of Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority. Burke confirmed to ABC radio that the decision to cancel Rothman's visa was over his comments about Gazan children and for the protection of Palestinian and Muslim Australians, and not based on his calls for the destruction of Hamas, as has been alleged by some conservative media outlets. 'If anyone wanted to come on a public speech tour, and they had those views publicly expressed about Israeli children, I would block the visa,' Burke said. 'I am going to not have a lower bar for the protection of views that are bigoted views against the Palestinian people.' Fellow government minister Clare O'Neil called Netanyahu's comments 'disappointing'. 'I think Benjamin Netanyahu is in a bit of a habit of making [such comments]. This type of diplomacy doesn't work, and that's why Australia doesn't engage with it,' she said. 'Our prime minister does us very proud on a global stage. He does it by being respectful. He does it by holding a strong position for our country. We determine our national interest, and that is how we're approaching the conflict in the Middle East.' The opposition has accused the government of deteriorating the relationship with Israel, describing it as at an all-time low. Shadow home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie, criticised Labor's decision to revoke the visa, and said while he didn't agree with all of Rothman's views, the government should not have refused the visa of a member of the Knesset. 'I think the government's failed to recognise what this cancellation would mean. This wasn't just any old visa,' he told ABC radio. Liberal backbencher Jane Hume called Burke's comments 'incendiary' and 'outrageous'. 'You can understand why [Netanyahu] would feel betrayed by Australia and by Anthony Albanese,' she said.

Make no mistake, what's unfolding is spiteful class warfare on steroids: JEFF PRESTRIDGE
Make no mistake, what's unfolding is spiteful class warfare on steroids: JEFF PRESTRIDGE

Daily Mail​

time30 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Make no mistake, what's unfolding is spiteful class warfare on steroids: JEFF PRESTRIDGE

Another day and yet another rumour emerges of an egregious attack on the wealth of Middle England by this tax-grabbing Government. It's enough to reduce grown men and women, the prudent and thrifty to tears. Having just informed us that a more pernicious inheritance tax regime is heading our way, Labour has now indicated that it is looking to impose a new property tax regime on middle-class homeowners. It seems that nothing in our financial armoury – our home, pension and savings – is sacred in the eyes of Labour. It's all there to be grabbed or taxed to the hilt. Although details of the proposed tax are rather sketchy – and Treasury officials are currently remaining schtum – the fact that the story broke in the Labour-supporting Guardian newspaper suggests that this new tax regime has legs. No smoke without fire. The tax, it seems, could apply to those selling homes worth more than £500,000 – and replace the current stamp duty tax which is levied on buyers. Another option is an annual levy on the value of a property – a wealth tax whichever way you look at it. At what rate the tax would be applied is anyone's guess but it would surely be set at such a level that it raised more than the Treasury currently receives in stamp duty (£11.6billion in the last financial year). After all, this is a tax overhaul driven essentially by Labour's desperate need to generate more revenue for the Treasury's coffers, much diminished by the Chancellor's bloated spending and costly U-turns on winter fuel payment and much-needed welfare reform. It's scary – bloody scary. Make no mistake about it, what is unfolding before our very eyes is class warfare on steroids. A spiteful assault on millions of people who through a mix of thrift, sacrifice and damned hard work have built their own financial fortress, only for the Big Bad Wolf that is Labour to come along and attempt to blow it down. While the current stamp duty tax regime is far from perfect, a replacement property tax – whichever form it takes – would bring with it a shedful of issues. For example, if it took the form of a seller's tax, it would surely clog up the housing market even more than it is now. I imagine that many elderly homeowners sitting in sizeable £500,000-plus properties would opt to stay put rather than sell up, pay the tax and downsize. But if it was an annual tax, it could blow a hole in your household budget. Alongside the replacement for stamp duty, Labour is also rumoured to be looking at abolishing council tax and introducing a 'local' property tax which owners, not residents, would pay. This would be based on the value of the home. Good luck there, Rachel Reeves, given that a similar idea (the poll tax) introduced some 35 years ago by a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher went down like a lead balloon – and was swiftly abandoned. Of course, there is a strong case for reform of property taxes in this country. But my suspicion is that Rachel From Accounts will use reform as cover to squeeze the middle classes until the pips squeak. As far as she is concerned our homes, pensions and savings are hers to tap for extra tax. Frightening. Beware of the Big Bad She-Wolf.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store